Bill O'Reilly sums up American history perfectly in two tweets, doesn't realize it

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/06/24/bill-oreilly-sums-up-america.html

14 Likes

57 Likes

Christ, what an asshole

32 Likes

Shockingly, he’s not wrong.

Not that he realizes it, of course.

31 Likes

Yeah, I’m sure the lynch mobs were totally giving their victims a choice: “either take some goddamn personal responsibility or we’re gonna strangle ya!”

29 Likes

Wow, this is right up there with Rush’s consent rant in terms of self-unaware truth-spewing.

26 Likes

It’s nice to think that someone on the right is actually grappling with the correct argument rather than making up a straw man to gnaw on. Then again, it’s hard to believe he actually understands the implications of the argument, because if he did he would have to see it is inescapably correct.

28 Likes

I wouldn’t call my self radical or a leftist, but the first one is fucking basic history. Originally, who had the only right to vote and hold office? (Spoiler - not women nor blacks.) I realize his wording is meant to assume this statement is false and only something a “radical leftist” would believe, but this is historical fact and impossible to disagree with without lies or ignorance.

The 2nd part is true too, but is easier to do some mental gymnastics that if Morgan Freeman can get rich, so can anyone and that racial oppression isn’t a thing.

36 Likes

Bill who? And why is he relevant?

9 Likes

The fact that he doesn’t believe it to be factual correct should tell you something about how a conservative, ideologically driven history gets written…

48 Likes

Was his Twitter account hacked?

11 Likes

I’m confused, is Bill O’Reilly suggesting that the three-fifths compromise wasn’t racist? Or does he just think that slaves weren’t quite as tall?

28 Likes

Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while.

18 Likes

IncomparableReadyHornedviper-size_restricted

31 Likes

Recall that in 1787 was the large slave states that wanted to count all the slaves, and the abolitionists who did not want to count the slaves at all, because it would mean the slave states would get more representatives in Congress (and the slaves would not get any benefit from them). So as odd as it looks now, the compromise was an attempt to limit the power of the slave states. In those days, the abolitionists did not have the political support to get any more.

27 Likes

Thank you. I came here to stay that.

1 Like

Well. The part about the Radical Left thinking there is no personal accountability is wrong.

More like: at a society level scale, personal accountability does not come into play. One guy can commit a crime, sure, you arrest him for that. You look at the crime rate of his neighborhood and start to think, “Aha! There must be some reason the crime rate is high here!”.

Preaching to the choir, I know, but it is an explicit appeal to try and not acknowledge the problem.

18 Likes

Due to established treaties between my pituitary, adrenals, hippocampus, and sore knuckles, this is the only O’Reilly that I will officially recognize:

image

7 Likes

Facts have a well known liberal bias, so let’s stick to opinions and talking point, ya know? /s

21 Likes

Good point! The fact that the slave owners wanted to quantify slaves even though they couldn’t vote is what I was going after.

10 Likes